[humor]What do you mean? Video proof.[/humor]
You, sir...are horribly wrong in thinking that humor does ANYTHING to promote the advancement of <insert victims here, such as gays, fatasses like me, etc> *chuckle*
I guess I'm just not seeing the importance of including a gay character in the newest Star Trek movie.
In the 1960s, in the original series, there were some pretty other big fish to fry including sexism, racism, and the cultural melting pot of the future. I don't think everybody realizes just how ground-breaking the show really was... and yet couldn't be. Roddenberry said that he was told, flat out, that he couldn't have a female first officer in the series (at least not if he had an alien on board) despite including one in the pilot episode. And the TV making practices of the day, the bidding out of stories to the writer pool, and all that guaranteed focus on just a few stars' characters week-in, week-out. They took some good shots with the opportunities they had and pushed some envelopes.
So I think the old series certainly should get a pass on this issue simply because of what it was able to accomplish.
For later series - and movies focusing on completely novel characters - you may have more of a case. But I'm really not seeing it for this movie at all. Either you have to introduce characters who, implicitly, cannot survive or factor into the old series, or they'll end up being the antagonists for our already-established protagonists. Neither, I think, is a good place to put a positive gay role model character at this stage.
Ok, so every show/movie/band/play/comic book/RPG/whatever MUST have at least one each of the following, or it is a sin to watch:
A gay character.
A black character.
A woman character.
A Hispanic character.
An atheistic left-handed lesbian Eskimo character. (extra points for naming the reference)
An Indian character (both South Asian and native American)
An East Asian character.
A Muslim character.
A Jewish character.
A Buddhist character.
A pagan character.
A vegan character.(Did I miss any?)
The villain must be played by a White male Christian character (as they are the only group allowed to be completely vilified by the PC crowd).
Hmmm, looks like I'll have plenty of time to catch up on naps...
Ahhh- poor wee WASP- feeling a bit put upon are we?
I'll tell you what, why don't we all just hide when you come along- maybe swing a cowbell or something to give us non-Texans the heads up. After all, everything is better with more cowbell.Naah, it just gets tedious after a while.
Tell you what.....it would be real helpful if, instead of a comics code authority, you could put a
"Warning--hamfisted morality play, inartfully executed; read with caution." In the future I'd really appreciate my propaganda either more subtle or with a warning label so I don't have to go into the experience actually expecting a decent story.
For the win! You are now my anti-PC gawd!
Over 40 years, five T.V. series, something like ten (eleven?) movies, there has never been a single openly gay character on Star Trek (of which I am aware).
Perhaps I'm forgetting something, but has there ever been an openly Christian character on Star Trek? Or an openly Jewish character or an openly Muslim character?
I believe I recall some throw away lines here and there about this or that character coming from a church-going family, and I remember a few non-denominational funerals. But when was the last time a Star Trek character actually said a real-world prayer to the Christian God, or observed a real-world Christian holiday in a non-secular manner?
Hell, didn't they blow up God in Star Trek V? How many times can you present organized religion as a bunch of misguided worshipers being fooled by alien beings and/or superior technology before that starts to count as excluding someone?
Nownow, this is about how someone feels victimized....not reality :)
Nownow, this is about how someone feels victimized....not reality :)
I should know better, but...
You're right; you're an absolute paragon of compassion.
And about the boycotting, if you're going to change who you're speaking to in mid-post, some sort of preamble would be well advised. It's just good messageboard etiquette.
As for "who the hell am I?" I don't know what you mean, but I don't see how that affects the validity of my message.
Well I had no idea I'd get this much responce.
I guess I'm just not seeing the importance of including a gay character in the newest Star Trek movie.
THAT'S BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GAY. IT'S EASY TO SAY IT'S NOT IMPORTANT WHEN IT DOES NOT INCLUDE YOU.
"In the 1960s, in the original series, there were some pretty other big fish to fry including sexism, racism, and the cultural melting pot of the future."
YES AND KUDOS TO THE SHOW FOR DOING THAT. NOW IN 2009 WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT. WE HAVE COME ALONG WAY BUT THERE ARE MANY MILES TO GO.
For later series - and movies focusing on completely novel characters - you may have more of a case. But I'm really not seeing it for this movie at all. Either you have to introduce characters who, implicitly, cannot survive or factor into the old series, or they'll end up being the antagonists for our already-established protagonists. Neither, I think, is a good place to put a positive gay role model character at this stage.
I THINK YOU MISS THE POINT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE ANY CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE EVEN IF IT'S A GAY FAMILY IN THE BACKGROUND HAVING A PICNIC, SHOWING GLBT AS EVERYDAY PEOPLE. BUT AT LAST THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE ANY CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE EVEN IF IT'S A GAY FAMILY IN THE BACKGROUND HAVING A PICNIC, SHOWING GLBT AS EVERYDAY PEOPLE. BUT AT LAST THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
On the one hand, I can definitely sympathize with your annoyance; it's about @!*! time people got reasonable representation. On the other hand, though, my last name is Goldman, but I won't boycott the movie on the basis that it lacks an openly Jewish character (instead, I'll skip it on the more pressing basis that I'm not a Trekkie). I do have one question, if you'll permit me, so that I can fully understand your concern: is it just THIS movie that has to meet this requirement? Or do you refuse to see ALL movies that lack gay people in them (although of course I'm not sure how you'd know in advance whether they do, unless you send someone ahead to screen all movies for ones that meet your requirement) -- in which case you probably don't get to see too many movies?
I will definitely see this movie. Kirk was a champion for interspecies heterosexual relationships, and I too want to sleep with a green chick.
Over 40 years, five T.V. series, something like ten (eleven?) movies, there has never been a single openly gay character on Star Trek (of which I am aware).Perhaps I'm forgetting something, but has there ever been an openly Christian character on Star Trek? Or an openly Jewish character or an openly Muslim character?
I believe I recall some throw away lines here and there about this or that character coming from a church-going family, and I remember a few non-denominational funerals. But when was the last time a Star Trek character actually said a real-world prayer to the Christian God, or observed a real-world Christian holiday in a non-secular manner?
Hell, didn't they blow up God in Star Trek V? How many times can you present organized religion as a bunch of misguided worshipers being fooled by alien beings and/or superior technology before that starts to count as excluding someone?
Hear, hear!
Discarding savage and primitive superstitions and abrahamic cults was the only way the world could be united. There are no christians in trek because the species outgrew the need for fairie tales and blood spilt for illusions.
Discarding savage and primitive superstitions and abrahamic cults was the only way the world could be united. There are no christians in trek because the species outgrew the need for fairie tales and blood spilt for illusions.
I rest my case.
Hell, didn't they blow up God in Star Trek V?
Wait -- there was a Star Trek V? When did this come out? I know of IV and VI... :P
<snipped because Talesin Hoyle's already made a similar point.>
|
Religion is vaguely mentioned in some of the older novels, but I don't remember a single reference to any realworld religion (like Christianity). In Final Frontier there's mention of Kirk and family having Christmas together, but the entire description is a couple sentences and family-oriented with the word 'Christmas' the only religious reference. In the novels, more often than not, if there's any religious reference it's Vulcan Philosophy, where they don't actually pray to deities but use deific representations and names as philosophical cornerstones and meditation; but Surak is their real worship--and I'm sure Spock would take offense at the notion that Vulcans worship anyone. Uhura and Sulu occasionally will make a 'Oh, gods' comment (in the novels), but it's all very noncommittal. McCoy did mention in a couple episodes that he came from a Baptist family, but that's it, nothing else said about it. In the novels, at least, religion is usually rebuked as something odd; as fairy tales, like you mention. You are absolutely right--religion in the episodic canon is almost always revealed as something that is patently non-deific, like the Bajorans; something explicable.
|
Discarding savage and primitive superstitions and abrahamic cults was the only way the world could be united. There are no christians in trek because the species outgrew the need for fairie tales and blood spilt for illusions.
So the Federation is just a bunch of atheists? No wonder they're all whiney pansies...
|
|
Religion is vaguely mentioned in some of the older novels, but I don't remember a single reference to any realworld religion (like Christianity). In Final Frontier there's mention of Kirk and family having Christmas together, but the entire description is a couple sentences and family-oriented with the word 'Christmas' the only religious reference. In the novels, more often than not, if there's any religious reference it's Vulcan Philosophy, where they don't actually pray to deities but use deific representations and names as philosophical cornerstones and meditation; but Surak is their real worship--and I'm sure Spock would take offense at the notion that Vulcans worship anyone. Uhura and Sulu occasionally will make a 'Oh, gods' comment (in the novels), but it's all very noncommittal. McCoy did mention in a couple episodes that he came from a Baptist family, but that's it, nothing else said about it. In the novels, at least, religion is usually rebuked as something odd; as fairy tales, like you mention. You are absolutely right--religion in the episodic canon is almost always revealed as something that is patently non-deific, like the Bajorans; something explicable.
I thought I remember Picard saying something about organized religion being a thing of the past but I could be wrong.
|
|
Ok, so every show/movie/band/play/comic book/RPG/whatever MUST have at least one each of the following, or it is a sin to watch:
A gay character.
A black character.
A woman character.
A Hispanic character.
An atheistic left-handed lesbian Eskimo character. (extra points for naming the reference)
An Indian character (both South Asian and native American)
An East Asian character.
A Muslim character.
A Jewish character.
A Buddhist character.
A pagan character.
A vegan character.(Did I miss any?)
The villain must be played by a White male Christian character (as they are the only group allowed to be completely vilified by the PC crowd).
Hmmm, looks like I'll have plenty of time to catch up on naps...
Ahhh- poor wee WASP- feeling a bit put upon are we?
I'll tell you what, why don't we all just hide when you come along- maybe swing a cowbell or something to give us non-Texans the heads up. After all, everything is better with more cowbell.Naah, it just gets tedious after a while.
Tell you what.....it would be real helpful if, instead of a comics code authority, you could put a
"Warning--hamfisted morality play, inartfully executed; read with caution." In the future I'd really appreciate my propaganda either more subtle or with a warning label so I don't have to go into the experience actually expecting a decent story.
touche, Heathy.
At least the new movie looks like it has more in common with Wrath of Khan then The Motion Picture.
And apologies to houstonderek- I was tired from a long day and had just had a belly full of being forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh's bile.
That's cool; I think I'm touchy of late; springtime, full moon, and sleep deprivation.
|
|
What exactly, would having an openly gay character add to the story?While I totally sympathizing with the feelings and intentions of the original poster, I also agree with this. While it's unfortunate, even sad, if the movie's creators deliberately made this decision to be exclusive, I can't say it surprises me when they're making a prequel to a series with no openly gay characters. Sure, they could retcon a few in, but I could see how that might feel tacked on. Really, let the artist make the film he wants - and succeed or hang himself based on the results. I know Star Trek was groundbreaking once and commiserate with those who have lived to see the luster of the 23rd century fade, but honestly I think we're going tho have to look beyond the Enterprise for our revolutions nowadays.
And really, since Takei came out, is there anyone who doesn't see Sulu as gay? Personally, I like seeing the old episodes featuring him now, it feels like the world has finally been let in on an awesome in-joke.
I almost said to the OP, "wait...what about Sulu?" Dee dee dee!!!
|
And really, since Takei came out, is there anyone who doesn't see Sulu as gay? Personally, I like seeing the old episodes featuring him now, it feels like the world has finally been let in on an awesome in-joke.
There has to be at least one slashfic out there based on the time George Takei accidentally pierced Shatner's nipple.
Sulu isn't gay just because Takei is gay. When drunk in "The Naked Time," its all "I'll take you, fair maiden." He doesn't grab Mr. Leslie.
{side note: Uhura's response is one of my favorite lines, "Sorry, neither." They way that zinger just slips in there is fantastic}
Taliesin Hoyle wrote: Discarding savage and primitive superstitions and abrahamic cults was the only way the world could be united. There are no christians in trek because the species outgrew the need for fairie tales and blood spilt for illusions.
In "Who Mourns for Adonis" Apollo asks Kirk, "Is there no room in your lives/hearts for gods?"
To which Kirk replies, "We find the one God sufficient now."
I remember it because it was always edited in reruns when they started showing more commercials.
But its on the DVD, as it was in the original run. It stuck out when I saw it.
It it is canon; deal with it. Kirk wasn't speaking for himself, he used "we." Maybe he was Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian. Take your monotheistic pick, that's fair game. However, all three take a dim view of homosexuality.
OTOH, in "Requiem for Methuselah," when Spock takes away Kirk's pain and suffering with a mind meld and the simple word "Forget" he displays such tender compassion for his male friend the likes of which are rarely rivaled. It brings Tom Skerrit's line from A River Runs Through It to mind, "And so it is that we can love completely without complete understanding." For Spock does not understand such love as Kirk feels for Rayna, but he ends it for his friend anyway.
Or compare "The Naked Time" to STIII:TSfS. Kirk addresses his ship with the inflamed vehemence and passion that only liquor can bring on, "I'll never lose you. NEVER." Then Kirk is the one who destroys that very ship (not to mention loses his own son; albeit a poorly known son) in order to save his friend. Even Sarek knows how precious the Enterprise is to Kirk, he lists it first, David is almost an after thought, "But at what cost? Your ship. Your son."
The filial love that Kirk and Spock have for one another is stronger and deeper than most couples (of any gender preference) will ever know.
But since neither one is begging to tune a meat whistle, we can just discard the whole thing and discount the entire franchise until we get the money shot between frictionless sheets. Gee whiz . . .
No Italian-American characters. That's why I won't be venturing near a theater while Star Trek is showing. The Godfather or Goodfellas is gracing a television station somewhere, anyhow. I can't identify with my cultural roots unless Captain Scagletti is cursing the Klingons into the void and yelling fugetaboutit in response to every warning klaxon. What, Italians can't pilot star ships? We're too busy cooking up spaghetti and meatballs in the future, I guess. I wonder if a replicator can make sauce that tastes like my grandmother's.
I wonder if a replicator can make sauce that tastes like my grandmother's.
I doubt it. It was mentioned many times on DS9 that replicated food was bland compared to the real thing.
|
|
Actually a gay character in a Star Trek movie has already been done. Forget what the actor or director have to say. The character has been established as gay in canon, and rather simpathetically so, I'd say.
Well I had no idea I'd get this much responce.
I guess I'm just not seeing the importance of including a gay character in the newest Star Trek movie.
THAT'S BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GAY. IT'S EASY TO SAY IT'S NOT IMPORTANT WHEN IT DOES NOT INCLUDE YOU.
"In the 1960s, in the original series, there were some pretty other big fish to fry including sexism, racism, and the cultural melting pot of the future."
YES AND KUDOS TO THE SHOW FOR DOING THAT. NOW IN 2009 WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT. WE HAVE COME ALONG WAY BUT THERE ARE MANY MILES TO GO.
For later series - and movies focusing on completely novel characters - you may have more of a case. But I'm really not seeing it for this movie at all. Either you have to introduce characters who, implicitly, cannot survive or factor into the old series, or they'll end up being the antagonists for our already-established protagonists. Neither, I think, is a good place to put a positive gay role model character at this stage.
I THINK YOU MISS THE POINT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE ANY CHARACTER IN THE MOVIE EVEN IF IT'S A GAY FAMILY IN THE BACKGROUND HAVING A PICNIC, SHOWING GLBT AS EVERYDAY PEOPLE. BUT AT LAST THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
How the heck would you know they're gay if they're just off having a picnic? Do they have some kind of gay dress code? You'd have to draw attention to them as gay in some way, some behavior, some comment. And then you'd probably run into critics charging tokenism.
Better to have a better realized and fleshed out gay character. But again, you'd run into the fact that sometime after this movie, when the time covered by the TV show starts up, that character would have to be gone.
Seriously, you need to get a grip and stop shouting at someone who disagrees with you.
|
For the extra points, The Dead Milkmen.
Wasn't there an episode where Spock had the ol' pan farr with a wookie and a pair of hobbits. I'm pretty sure Gandalf filmed the whole thing.
Now take it easy everyone, I'm just trying to lighten the mood a bit.
I think they should include a gay character. Star Trek always was about envisioning a better humanity in a better future despite what reality seemed indicate. I'm pretty sure Star Fleet moved past don't ask don't tell by the 23rd century.
In "Who Mourns for Adonis" Apollo asks Kirk, "Is there no room in your lives/hearts for gods?"
To which Kirk replies, "We find the one God sufficient now."
It it is canon; deal with it. Kirk wasn't speaking for himself, he used "we." Maybe he was Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian. Take your monotheistic pick, that's fair game. However, all three take a dim view of homosexuality.
Or maybe he's a Deist, and doesn't care about homosexuality, nor believe in miracles.
You know the green chick was a guy, right?
LOl-I didn't say I wanted to sleep with THAT green chick.
|
|
Or maybe he's a Deist, and doesn't care about homosexuality, nor believe in miracles.In "Who Mourns for Adonis" Apollo asks Kirk, "Is there no room in your lives/hearts for gods?"
To which Kirk replies, "We find the one God sufficient now."
It it is canon; deal with it. Kirk wasn't speaking for himself, he used "we." Maybe he was Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian. Take your monotheistic pick, that's fair game. However, all three take a dim view of homosexuality.
Point Gersen.
Mykull, also, even if Kirk did follow a religion in the Abrahamic tradition, you may want to change the "all three take a dim view..." to "all three took a dim view...". Religions change, evolve if you will, over time, The Roman Catholic Church looked and believed quite differently than the early Coptic and Gnostic sects. Furthermore, the proscription against pork wasn't really lifted from followers of Christ until John actively recruited the Galatians (a Celtic tribe brought into Asia Minor as mercenaries who decided to settle down) to the fold.
Who knows what religion would morph into in the 23rd Century.
For the extra points, The Dead Milkmen.
Wasn't there an episode where Spock had the ol' pan farr with a wookie and a pair of hobbits. I'm pretty sure Gandalf filmed the whole thing.
Now take it easy everyone, I'm just trying to lighten the mood a bit.
I think they should include a gay character. Star Trek always was about envisioning a better humanity in a better future despite what reality seemed indicate. I'm pretty sure Star Fleet moved past don't ask don't tell by the 23rd century.
I think I flagged you when I was trying to do something else. Sorry.
|
|
There was also Uhura's comment about thinking that the residents of Rome-world worshipped 'the sun in the sky, when they were talking about the Son of God!'
There wasn't a chapel on the ship, that we saw (other than Nurse Chapel, ba-dum-bum!), but there was several mentions of faith in a singular God. I guess if people want to feel all victim-y, they can do so, but the mentions where there to be seen.
As for this movie, it's supposed to be about Kirk, Spock, Bones, etc. none of whom were estabablished as gay. I'd be disappointed if a pre-established character were retconned into being gay, as it would be cheap. It would be equally cheap to force in a brand new character introduced for the sole purpose of shoe-horning in an ethnic / demographic / minority / token character.
*This* story is about a group of pre-established characters. The only way to squeeze in a token gay person would be to hand that role to the new characters, such as the villain, and how popular a choice would that be, to have the first ever gay Trek character be the bad-guy who gets killed in the end? (in theory, anyway. maybe the villain of Trek 11 lives happily ever after...)
There are plenty of places where such a new character could be introduced, with a Saavik-like character from Wrath of Khan, for instance, but this ain't the movie for it.
Introducing a 'token' gay person just to say, 'yeah, we got one of them too' would be cheap and miss the whole point. Retconning a pre-established straight character into a gay character would be as cheap as turning Kirk Jewish and pretending to suddenly be friends of Israel.
This just isn't the movie to deal with this.
I grew up watching star trek reruns in the late 70's. As a child I believed everything the show was telling me. That in the future it will not matter what you are but who you are on the inside. That mankind will have evolved.
From the moment star trek went off air, through all of the movies and
up to the last series, The Gay community has begged for ONE gay character from a show that is suppose to inclusion.
In a interview done on AfterElton, the movie's creators flat out said no to having a gay character on the movie(not even a non major character).
I'm done.
I will not spend my money to support something that has gone out of it's way for the last 30 years to pretend that I do not exsist.
Bummer.
If it makes you feel any better, a few episodes of Deep Space Nine tackled gender in relationships in interesting ways that were incredibly progressive.
The one where Dax's past wife comes to the station on a science mission and they renew their relationship...great episode that validates homosexual relationships without even having to be ABOUT being gay. Nicely done episode.
There is also the one where the other changeling (one of the Hundred) comes to Deep Space Nine, and tries to teach Odo how to truly become himself and they join in the link (so sexual, obviously). The way he is treated for linking with the other changeling and the fear and suspicion they are both treated with by people on the station was a fantastic indictment of society's inability to except certain people based on their relationship/gender choices. Again, this was all about being gay and how society marginalizes/fears gay people, without ever overstating it.
In fact, I would take some consolation (maybe) in the fact that as a vehicle for social change Trek has always really done it without expressly pointing it out to the audience, it's more subversive than an overt premise really and I kinda dig that.
Really, the idea of something like which gender you choose to mate with is something so obviously taken for granted in a setting as progressive as Trek (in fact this is referred to over and over in DS9).
That said, I understand you're not wanting to support a movie based on its politics. I choose not to support many movies based on politics, as well, and I think it is a good way to "vote" with your dollars. Entertainment wields massive influence, especially over young people, and as consumers it is a good idea to demand more "enlightened" films and novels from those who create them. At least I think so.
Best News I heard all day.
That George Takei was gay? Agreed. Pretty cool news if you ask me. ;-)
|
|
Best News I heard all day.That George Takei was gay? Agreed. Pretty cool news if you ask me. ;-)
*start threadjack* Nick! How's the RC editing going? Please post any answers here. Thanks! *end threadjack*
|
LOl-I didn't say I wanted to sleep with THAT green chick.
You know the green chick was a guy, right?
She-Hulk...nuff said about that.
As to the OP boycotting the flick is your right.Me I couldn't care less if a movie shows my particular social group or not, heck I don't get offended that just about every Irish character in any movie or show is a drunk religious zealot, or even if they got one at all, I'm proud of my heritage both the Irish and the Cherokee(don't even mention the way Native Americans are portrayed).I would however be intrested in hearing the behind the refusal to include a gay character.
|
|
In fact, I would take some consolation (maybe) in the fact that as a vehicle for social change Trek has always really done it without expressly pointing it out to the audience, it's more subversive than an overt premise really and I kinda dig that.
Good point. ST was never "All in the Family" - they never tackled social issues head on. The most direct they got was when Kirk/Picard would play Aesop at the end of an episode (and sometimes those pithy speeches of his had nothing to do with the mayhem preceeding them). They did it indirectly, through symbolism, allusion and alienation (pun!).
|
|
I would however be intrested in hearing the behind the refusal to include a gay character.
Uptight Christian population (a subset of the total Christian community) > GLBT population. Not hard to figure out. Abrams' job is to make Paramount money, not make a point.
This is ignoring that there wasn't a "core" gay character in ToS anyway. I'm sure even a percentage of the GLBT community would nerdrage over "canon" being changed. Nerdrage is funny like that.
Wasn't there a fan fic tradition of creating homoerotic Star Trek literature? I recall hearing that Kirk really let Spock have what fer. I'm completely serious. It was a thing. I'm really hoping someone backs me up on this or I'm just going to look unbalanced.
Yeah yeah... more unbalanced.
|
|
Wasn't there a fan fic tradition of creating homoerotic Star Trek literature? I recall hearing that Kirk really let Spock have what fer. I'm completely serious. It was a thing. I'm really hoping someone backs me up on this or I'm just going to look unbalanced.
Yeah yeah... more unbalanced.
Had a friend who wrote thsoe for some years. SHe was really into the slash fic. That and the Harry Potter/Draco Malfoy stuff was very intersting too. She almost dropped brick when Dumbledore was outed.
|
Wasn't there a fan fic tradition of creating homoerotic Star Trek literature? I recall hearing that Kirk really let Spock have what fer. I'm completely serious. It was a thing. I'm really hoping someone backs me up on this or I'm just going to look unbalanced.
Yeah yeah... more unbalanced.
It's true some fan fiction came out mid 90's that portrayed Kirk and Spock having an ongoing sexual relationship but they stopped having sex when Kirk met Carolyn Marcus. Also in the stories bi-sexuality was common and accepted with no social stigma attached.
|
|
I would however be intrested in hearing the behind the refusal to include a gay character.
Uptight Christian population (a subset of the total Christian community) > GLBT population. Not hard to figure out. Abrams' job is to make Paramount money, not make a point.
This is ignoring that there wasn't a "core" gay character in ToS anyway. I'm sure even a percentage of the GLBT community would nerdrage over "canon" being changed. Nerdrage is funny like that.
This would be on the assuption that "Hollyweird" gave a crud about offending anyones beleifs much less that of us..."Uptight Christians".
Wich is something that I really don't beleive.(how many movies are made that do just that)I'm sorry that the OP feels so hurt by this and if it was done out of bigotry then it's wrong... but MAYBE if done out of a lack of reason to develop a gay character...it's just bad breaks at that point.